Final report on link level and system level channel models - Winner
Final report on link level and system level channel models - Winner
Final report on link level and system level channel models - Winner
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
WINNER D5.4 v. 1.4<br />
When comparing the shadow fading autocorrelati<strong>on</strong>, we got the following results for the autocorrelati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
of the over-all shadowing: For 2.45 GHz the correlati<strong>on</strong> distance was approximately 330 m <strong>and</strong> for the<br />
5.25 GHz it was approximately 320 m. Note that the route used for the comparis<strong>on</strong> was the <strong>on</strong>e with the<br />
greatest correlati<strong>on</strong> distance.<br />
5.6.9.2 Rms-delay spread<br />
The RMS delay spread is shown in the Table 5.46 for the centre-frequencies 2.45 <strong>and</strong> 5.25 GHz. The<br />
difference is c<strong>on</strong>siderable. For 2.45 GHz the mean delay spread for LOS is 35 % <strong>and</strong> for NLOS 80 %<br />
higher. Same trend can be found in the references cited in Secti<strong>on</strong> 5.5.<br />
Table 5.46: Rms-delay spread percentiles at 2.45 <strong>and</strong> 5.25 GHz.<br />
Rms delay spread<br />
(ns)<br />
LOS<br />
NLOS<br />
2 GHz 5 GHz 2 GHz 5 GHz<br />
10% 6.4 2.5 12.3 4.3<br />
50% 22.7 15.4 61.0 37.1<br />
90% 64.0 84.4 130.0 89.5<br />
mean 30.2 36.8 69.0 42.1<br />
Page 134 (167)